Britain's commitment to the war on terror is certainly less strong under the unelected leadership of Gordon Brown, who became prime minister on June 27, 2007. As soon as he became the premier, Brown ordered his cabinet ministers to avoid the term "War on terror".

A sign of the current administration's lack of realism came in January this year, when Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that Islamic terrorism was "anti-Islamic activity". She said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief. Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic." Smith's Islamic scholars seem to ignore the evidence of the Hadith of Bukhari, in which Mohammed's last words included the statement: "I have been made victorious with terror".

Despite previous previous bland statements about terrorism, Brown and Smith are now facing rebellion from Labour party ranks for trying to be "tough" on terror suspects. On November 9, 2005 Tony Blair had been defeated when he tried to extend the time that terror suspects could be detained without being charged. Blair wanted suspects detained for 90 days, but Parliament only accepted a compromise of 28 days. Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith want the time to be raised to 42 days in a bill to be discussed next month.

In 1998 the Labour Party introduced the Human RIghts Act, which ensured that all of British law had to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights. Already this legislation has proved to be disastrous when dealing with terrorism. It has allowed Afghan terrorists the right to remain in Britain indefinitely.

Control orders were introduced by then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke in 2005. These measures were brought in to monitor and regulate the activities of terror suspects who could not be prosecuted, often in the form of a partial house arrest. In May 2007 it was revealed that three individuals - Cerie Bullivant, Lamine Adam and Ibrahim Adam - had escaped, despite being under "control orders".

A month later, it was revealed that another individual had escaped a control order. Zeeshan Sidique, like the Adam brothers and Bullivant, had connections with the individuals convicted in the Operation Crevice trial of trying to cause explosions in Britain. Sidique had gone to Pakistan to commit "jihad". He had been admitted to a lunatic asylum while on a control order, but had escaped through a window in September 2006. He has not been found. His diary entries record the rantings of a disturbed individual, desperate to return to "the battlefield" of jihad for the sake of Allah.

On December 12, 2007, Cerie Bullivant was cleared by a jury on seven counts relating to his breaching his control order. He admitted he had absconded, but claimed that the control order had made his life miserable. He was placed on another control order, but his lawyer announced that he would appeal against the original order on the grounds that it breached Bullivant's human rights.

Abu Qatada

One individual who was issued with a control order was Abu Qatada (Omar Mahmoud Mohammed Othman). This Jordanian individual arrived illegally in Britain in September 1993 on a forged United Arab Emirates passport. In June 1994 he was granted asylum. He has been described by Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon as "Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe." Garzon has also claimed that Qatada is "the spiritual head of the Mujahideen in Britain." After the 9/11 attacks, video recordings of his sermons were found in the Hamburg apartment of Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 attackers. Both shoe-bomber RIchard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, the "20th member" of the 9/11 team, had gone to him for advice.

In 1998, Qatada was convicted in absentia in Jordan for involvement in a series of explosions in that year. Abu Qatada was arrested in February 2001, when he was suspected of involvement in a plot to bomb the Strasbourg Christmas Market in 2000. When arrested, he had £170,000 ($334,400) in cash (even though he had lived of welfare benefits). On his person was an envelope containing $14,000, upon which was written "for the muhajideen in Chechnya". After 2001, he was designated as a terrorist by the US Treasury, and was arrested again in October 2002. He was kept in detention, being released in March 2005 after lawyers argued that his human rights had been infringed. Upon release, he was issued with a control order to limit his associations with other people.

Abu Qatada was arrested again on August 11, 2005, on the orders of Charles Clarke. The Home Secretary wanted to extradite Qatada to Jordan, and to this end he had negotiated a "memorandum of understanding." This would have ensured that if Qatada was returned to Jordan, he would not be subject to inhuman treatment. While awaiting deportation, he was detained in Full Sutton jail near York.

In October 2005, he was being investigated for reaching the terms of his earlier control order. In December 2005release of four Christian hostages held in Iraq. Qatada pleaded for the Qatada argued against his deportation, and on Febuary 26 2007 he officially lost his appeal against deportation. However, he launched a further appeal against this decision, in a process that is conveniently funded by the British taxpayer.

The results of Qatada's appeal were announced on Wednesday April 9 last week. A panel of judges heard his case at the Court of Appeal. The ruling, announced by Lord Justice Buxton, overturned the February 2007 decision. He stated that as evidence in a future trial in Jordan could be gained through torture, the earlier tribunal had "misdirected itself in law."

Once again, the 1998 Human Rights Act, introduced by the current government, has been used to wreck attempts to deport potential terrorists from British soil.

Sentences Quashed

In February this year, British attempts to combat terrorism were dealt another blow when five individuals who had been jailed on July 26, 2007 were freed. Four students from Bradford University and one young man who had been a London schoolboy when he left home to join the group had been found guilty under the Terrorism Act 2000. They had contravened Section 57 of this act, by having books or items useful for a terrorist.

They were sentenced to jail terms from 27 months to three years. One of the items they possessed was a US military manual which detailed recipes for explosives. They also had a suicide bombing manual. The group exchanged messages on the At-Tibyan website run by Younes Tsouli, who is currently serving a 16 year jail sentence for inciting terrorism.

At the time that the Bradford group was convicted and jailed Peter Clarke, Scotland Yard's head of counterrorism, said: "This was not an adolescent fantasy. These five young men had decided to become active jihadists and to seek training at camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan. It is clear these men were intent on committing terrorism overseas."

Mohammed Irfan Raja - the youngest of the five convicted males, had written a "farewell letter" to his parents, in which it appeared evident that he wished to commit an act of "Holy War", though not inside Britain. He was urged to meet the Bradford students by an individual called "Ali" who lived in New Jersey and used the At-Tibyan web forum.

On February 13, 2008 at the Court of Appeal the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, threw out the convictions. The five men were freed. Lord Phillips argued that a conviction under Section 57 of the 2000 Terrorism Act "must be interpreted in a way that requires a direct connection between the object possessed and the act of terrorism."

Emails and messages on the defendants' computers which mentioned going to fight abroad were used by the prosecution in the original trial. However, according to the Court of Appeal judgment: "While they lent support to the prosecution case that the appellants had formed a plan to go to Pakistan to train and then to Afghanistan to fight, there was nothing that evidenced expressly the use, or intention to use, the extremist literature to incite each other to do this. We think it doubtful whether there was a case of infringement of Section 57... that could properly have been left to a jury."

The judge in the original trial had been the Recorder of London, Judge Peter Beaumont. This individual had also presided over another trial of an individual accused of possessing terrorist documents, a woman called Samina Malik. She had been the first Muslim woman convicted of terrorism offenses in Britain. She had originally faced prosecution under Section 57 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, but had instead was convicted of the lesser offense of owning terrorist documents under the 2006 Terrorism Act.

On her computer Malik had documents such as The Mujaheddin Poisoner's Handbook, Encyclopaedia of Jihad, How To Win In Hand To Hand Combat, How To Make Bombs and Sniper Manual. She also wrote poems glorifying the beheading of infidels which she circulated on the internet. Her pen-name was "Lyrical Terrorist". She was sentenced on December 10, 2007 to a nine-month suspended jail sentence.

RIPA

One piece of legislation introduced by the current government is the Regulation Of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). This was introduced in 2000, becoming law in 2001. This bill was introduced to enable terrorists and criminals to have their online conversations monitored, and also to carry out surveillance.

As described by the government, it was: "An Act to make provision for and about the interception of communications, the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications, the carrying out of surveillance, the use of covert human intelligence sources and the acquisition of the means by which electronic data protected by encryption or passwords may be decrypted or accessed; to provide for Commissioners and a tribunal with functions and jurisdiction in relation to those matters, to entries on and interferences with property or with wireless telegraphy and to the carrying out of their functions by the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters; and for connected purposes."

Though originally intended to cover serious crimes, this bill has been subjected to extensions by the government. As a result, the agencies who are now allowed to snoop on private data have been extended from nine police and security bodies to include local councils and other agencies. In total, there are now 792 different agencies who can carry out covert surveillance, and gain access to phone records, computer logs and email conversations (though not their contents).

Local councils have only a few members who are elected. Yet these councils are abusing the original intentions of the RIPA legislation to engage in surveillance activities of people for activities such as underage smoking and allowing their dogs to defecate on the sidewalk.

A family from Poole in Dorset, southwest England, only discovered that they had been under surveillance by their local council when the information slipped out at a council meting. The Joyce family were suspected of lying about where they lived so that they could send one of their children to a popular school. Poole council spent two weeks having the family's activities monitored.

Tim Joyce, whose family was placed under surveillance, said: "It used to be that the Home Secretary had to talk to a judge to get surveillance through the police. Now it seems the world and his wife can carry out surveillance whenever they feel like it."

Gosport borough council in Hampshire has admitted that it has been using (abusing) the RIPA legislation to monitor who is allowing their dogs to poop in public.

During 2006 an astounding 1,000 requests a day were made by councils to use the powers in the RIPA legislation, and at present 1,000 surveillance operations are being carried out every month. What is disturbing is that though RIPA was brought in to counter terrorism, none of these surveillance operations have anything to do with acts of terrorism.

Labour has always been a leftist party. The RIPA legislation that the party introduced would put the activities of a communist organization, such as East Germany's Stasi, to shame.

High Point

Having listed the low points in Britain's war against terrorism (sorry, there is no such war according to Gordon Brown) there have been some successes in the courts.

Gordon Brown became prime minister on June 27, 2007. By June 30, there had been three failed terrorist attacks in Britain. In the early hours of Friday June 29, two Mercedes cars filled with gas canisters and gasoline were left in the West End of London. Both had mechanisms which were designed to detonate the substances and cause death and injury to people attending nightclubs. The detonations were to have been triggered by mobile phone calls.

One vehicle was left outside the Tiger, Tiger nightclub in the Haymarket. Two phone calls were made to the cellular phone in the vehicle, but probably as a result of too many fumes the ignition failed and the cars did not explode.

On the afternoon of Saturday June 30, a Cherokee Jeep deliberately crashed into the entrance of Glasgow Airport and burst into flames. Two individuals who had been in the car were apprehended. One of these individuals, Kafeel Ahmed, received severe burns after he poured gasoline over himself.

He was taken to the Royal Alexandra Hospital at Paisley, near Glasgow. Ironically, Ahmed had earlier worked there as a temporary doctor. The other individual who had been in the Jeep was also a doctor - Dr Bilal Abdulla. By tracing the calls to the cellular phones in the vehicles left in London's West End, eight arrests had been made in a few days. One of those arrested was Sabeel Ahmed, brother of Kafeel Ahmed.

After the Jeep had crashed into the entrance of the airport, Sabeel Ahmed had found two email messages on his computer. One contained Kafeel Ahmed's will. The other was a specific message from his brother admitting his involvement in a bomb plot and asking him to stay silent.

Bilal Abdulla and Mohammed Asha will be tried later this year for their alleged involvement in the car bomb plots. Asha is a Saudi-born neurosurgeon from Jordan, who had no previous criminal record. Both were employed by Britain's National Health Service. Abdulla came from Iraq, where he had a reputation as a radical.

Sabeel Ahmed was sentenced to 18 months in prison, rather than the potential five years that could have been handed down. At the Old Bailey, the judge, Mr Justice Calvert-Smith, conceded that Ahmed only had information on the attacks after they had taken place. As Sabeel Ahmed has spent time in jail since his arrest, he will not be expected to spend more than a week more in jail. He has agreed to be voluntarily deported to his home in Bangalore, India.

Currently there are two high profile terror trials going on in Britain. One of these was discussed last week on Family Security Matters, concerning the plot to blow up US-bound airliners in August 2006.

The other main trial involves three individuals who are accused of helping the four men who carried out the London bombings of July 7, 2005, in which 52 innocent people died. Waheed Ali (aged 24), Sadeer Saleem (27) and Mohammed Shakil (31) are accused of providing logistical support to the 7/7 bombers.

A similar trial ended on February 4this year. Five individuals were jailed for assisting the men who tried but failed to blow up London Transport targets on July 21, 2005, a fortnight after the successful 7/7 bombings. The convicted men were given jail terms ranging from seven years to seventeen years.

The wife of Hussain Osman, one of the men who tried to attack London Transport on July 21, 2005 is also on trial at the Old Bailey. 31-year old Yeshiemebet Girma, her sister Mulumebet Girma and three men are accused of assisting Hussain Osman after the attacks. Another individual, 25-year old Mohamed Kabashi, pleaded guilty at a separate hearing on February 19 this year of assisting Hussain Osman to escape justice. Kabashi was a former boyfriend of Mulumebet Girma. The trial of the Girma sisters and three others is still continuing.

Britain's Labour government is now attempting to increase the amount of time a terror suspect can be detained without charge to 42 days. There are reasons for detention of suspects for 28 days. A detained individual is unable to communicate with others and in the case of terrorism charges it may take a long time to gather evidence, such as that from a computer drive.

But even at 28 days, the government is tampering with the basics of democratic freedoms and judicial process. A suspected murderer is not expected to stay in police detention for a month without charge. To extend the time a terror suspect is detained without charge to 42 days will not assist in the majority of terror cases.

The current Home Secretary is accused of using five-month old data to argue for a lengthening of detention. After her bland and patronizing comments about terrorism being "anti-Islamic activity" there is one group of people who will feel aggrieved by such actions - the law-abiding members of the Muslim community.

One faction within the Muslim community will be pleased by such legislation. As Labour MP David Winnick states: "If it became law, the only people who would really be happy would be the fundamentalists."

WJ's Current Affairs Editor is Adrian Morgan

---

Bookmark with: